All,
Within the GSA sponsored "OsEra" project we are currently engaged in
creating a "mid" ontology with many goals and attributes in common with
those expressed here - called "Semantic Core". Rick Murphy (who is also
involved in this same project) suggested that we should enter the
discussion.
The problem space we are addressing is the fragmentation of formal and
informal architectures. Architectures include business and technical views,
process, information, finance, goals and objectives, plans and
specifications. This space spans the range from "Enterprise Architecture",
domain Ontologies and business modeling to systems architectures,
implementation architectures and, of course, architectures of interactions
(E.G. information flow). Most architectures are a mix of context,
description and specification - however the purpose of specification is
central to the reason most architectures are done. We characterize this as
the specification of systems where "system" includes any organized construct
including any business, organization, community or computer program.
The problem is that architectures are done with a wide variety of languages,
formalisms, vocabularies and styles. The specification of a single system
(or system of systems) ordinarily involves multiple formalisms (languages,
notations, theories, etc) that are not well coupled and yet represent
overlapping concepts. This is a source for error, confusion and redundancy.
There are a set of problems dealing with the domain concepts in these
architectures - (E.G. do you and I mean the same thing by "purchase").
There are also a set of problems dealing with the concepts of doing
architecture (E.G. do you and I mean the same thing by "process"). We are
dealing with the later set of problems, these are essentially the "meta
concepts" common across architectural languages and notations. Languages
typically used for these purposes include UML, E-R models, OWL,
Collaboration Modeling, Services Interfaces, Information Models, FEA-RMO,
etc.
The approach is to normalize and unify the concepts expressed in these
various languages into a controlled but open set of concepts, this is the
"semantic core". These concepts may be introduced from any of the
architectural languages - our job is to try and "slice and dice" the
concepts so that the fit together (where possible) and are non-redundant
(Where possible). We can then describe the mapping and/or transformation of
various tools and representation into this common form. Thus it is
certainly a "hub" as described within a specific domain (of architectural
description), but the domain is quite wide. This will have value in fully
specifying an architecture as well as unifying architectures across time,
focus and organization.
This probably puts the work at the upper end of "mid" or "reference"
Ontologies but certainly does not require kind of upper ontology required to
understand human knowledge in general. We refer to it as an ontology (or
meta model) of architecture. To try and solve this without some kind of hub
would suffer the "N Squared" problems but would also suffer the problem that
complementary information about the same thing would not be represented in
any one place.
In keeping with the unification of concepts across representations, this set
of concepts is being represented as both an OWL ontology and a UML/MOF meta
model. We are also currently automating the structural transformation of
object oriented meta models (this includes most software engineering
disciplines - such as UML) to OWL. Note that this work actually started
more in the structural modeling "camp", using the "Meta object facility",
UML, etc. But we feel that there would be a lot to gain from the
capabilities offered by ontology and semantic web techniques and tools.
While we very much believe (and are along the way to demonstrating) that
unification at this level is possible, practical and useful, we do not
suggest it is "the one and only" hub - this is perhaps the dangerous idea.
However, given success and use, it could become a hub in common across a
substantial number of representations and architectures and thus provide
substantial value as well as a place to join with other hubs. Semantic core
it's self is not currently grounded in any upper ontology but I could see it
possible and useful to do so, and perhaps (where possible) ground concepts
in multiple hierarchies. This fits with John Sowa's approach for modules.
This work would both be a module as well as be composed of modules.
In that any "hub" gains value by a larger community it certainly makes sense
to us that ontac be involved with the care & feeding of hubs - such that we
not have to few or to many. It would be interesting to compare notes with
some of the other efforts mentioned to see where the hubs fit together. The
status of the semantic core is still early.
Cory Casanave
Data Access Technologies
GSA, OsEra Project
www.SemanticCore.org (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roberto Bordogna
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:25 AM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Semantic Interoperability: Sowa's Collection
ofModules (02)
To achieve semantic interoperability with this approach, since we will
certainly have n-squared modules. (03)
This is a well known problem in Economics. (04)
In theory with N agents or systems, (N)(N-1)/2 relations
will be needed to allow them to inter-operate. (05)
Using a common token, only (N-1) "links" are required (that is to say
using a star or nexus topology of relations). (06)
That's is why we generally use money (and not barter) for goods. (07)
To continue with the economic case, comparing the N individual
systems with national economies or banks, John Sowa's proposal is to
reduce the interoperability problem taking care of a subset of those
"transactions" that must interact with each other (in the
financial global market). (08)
In this sense it is interesting the S.W.I.F.T. case, an organization for
worldwide financial transaction, that work with Banks just thanks to
dedicated interface to every local information system (actually
Corporation as Oracle and the likes provide the software interface).
This Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial is a well established
*co-operative organization* created by banks to facilitate the exchange
of payments and other financial information between financial
institutions. (09)
A SWIFT message therefore is an instruction to transfer some fund from
some agent A to B, and appears very simple compared with the problem
that we are discussing here. (010)
It is interesting to note that to create a unique payment system
across EU (for the Euro), several systems (RTGS real-time gross
settlement systems - managed by every country Central National Bank)
across the continent had to be interconnected. I'm not up-to date with
the evolution of this project (called TARGET), but from a report of the
European Monetary Institute (Frankfurt- Germany) it is possible to note
that several *organizational adaptations and *new practice* were
required as well to achieve interoperability. (011)
Bottom line: there are cases in the Financial market that seems to
support the modular approach. Practice harmonizations appears to be
required as well. And a cooperative organization might re required. (012)
Nevertheless the monetary system and the SWIFT case shows that a
unique TOP SYSTEM, is needed, as well. (013)
Roberto Bordogna. (014)
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 23:20, Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6 wrote:
> All,
>
> Regarding John Sowa's suggestion of a collection of modules, I
> question if it is possible to achieve semantic interoperability with
> this approach, since we will certainly have n-squared modules?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ralph Hodgson
> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 6:52 PM
> To: rhodgson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Cc: irene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Ontology Architecture and Ontology-Based
> Systems
>
>
> I also meant to endorse the following contribution from John Sowa at
> http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/2005-11/msg00033.html
> "Recommendation: Shift attention from the unsolvable problem
> of building, merging, and coordinating global world views to
> the task of developing an open-ended collection of modules
> that can be selected, assembled, and tailored for particular
> tasks or collections of tasks. (015)"
>
> Ralph Hodgson
> Executive Partner
> TopQuadrant, Inc., www.topquadrant.com
> Office: (724) 846-9300 ext. 211,
> Direct: (703) 960-1028, Fax: (425) 955-5469, Cell: (781) 789-1664
> blog: http://topquadrant.typepad.com/ralph_hodgson/
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
--
Studio Dr.Eng.Bordogna
Media Engineering & Economics
Corso Magenta,32 20123 Milan Italy
phone:39.02.8690867 e-mail:bordogna@xxxxxx (015)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (017)
|